S5488 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 26, 2012 

S. 3204

At the request of Mr. JOHANNS, the 

names of the Senator from Alabama 

(Mr. SHELBY) and the Senator from 

New Hampshire (Ms. AYOTTE) were 

added as cosponsors of S. 3204, a bill to 

address fee disclosure requirements 

under the Electronic Fund Transfer 

Act, and for other purposes. 

S. 3239

At the request of Mrs. FEINSTEIN, the 

name of the Senator from California 

(Mrs. BOXER) was added as a cosponsor 

of S. 3239, a bill to provide for a uniform national standard for the housing 

and treatment of egg—laying hens, and 

for other purposes. 

S. 3326

At the request of Mr. JOHANNS, his 

name was added as a cosponsor of S. 

3326, a bill to amend the African 

Growth and Opportunity Act to extend 

the third—country fabric program and 

to add South Sudan to the list of countries eligible for designation under that 

Act, to make technical corrections to 

the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the 

United States relating to the textile 

and apparel rules of origin for the Dominican Republic—Central America— 

United States Free Trade Agreement, 

to approve the renewal of import restrictions contained in the Burmese 

Freedom and Democracy Act of 2003, 

and for other purposes. 

S. 3428

At the request of Mr. CARDIN, the 

name of the Senator from Arkansas 

(Mr. BOOZMAN) was added as a cosponsor of S. 3428, a bill to amend the Clean 

Air Act to partially waive the renewable fuel standard when corn inventories are low. 

S. 3436

At the request of Mr. FRANKEN, the 

name of the Senator from Alaska (Mr. 

BEGICH) was added as a cosponsor of S. 

3436, a bill to amend the Child Care and 

Development Block Grant Act of 1990 

to improve the quality of infant and 

toddler care. 

S. 3442

At the request of Ms. LANDRIEU, the 

names of the Senator from Oregon (Mr. 

MERKLEY), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. BLUMENTHAL), the Senator from New York (Mrs. GILLIBRAND), 

the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. 

WHITEHOUSE), the Senator from California (Mrs. BOXER), the Senator from 

New Hampshire (Mrs. SHAHEEN) and the 

Senator from Maryland (Mr. CARDIN) 

were added as cosponsors of S. 3442, a 

bill to provide tax incentives for small 

businesses, improve programs of the 

Small Business Administration, and for 

other purposes. 

S.J. RES. 39

At the request of Mr. CARDIN, the 

name of the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. 

AKAKA) was added as a cosponsor of 

S.J. Res. 39, a joint resolution removing the deadline for the ratification of 

the equal rights amendment. 

S. CON. RES. 48

At the request of Mr. LEAHY, the 

name of the Senator from Vermont 

(Mr. SANDERS) was added as a cosponsor of S. Con. Res. 48, a concurrent resolution recognizing 375 years of service 

of the National Guard and affirming 

congressional support for a permanent 

Operational Reserve as a component of 

the Armed Forces. 

S. RES. 176

At the request of Ms. MIKULSKI, the 

name of the Senator from Montana 

(Mr. TESTER) was added as a cosponsor 

of S. Res. 176, a resolution expressing 

the sense of the Senate that the United 

States Postal Service should issue a 

semipostal stamp to support medical 

research relating to Alzheimer’s disease. 

f 

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED 

BUS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS 

By Mr. HOEVEN (for himself, Mr. 

MCCONNELL, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. VITTER, Mr. 

THUNE, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. WICKER, Mrs. 

HUTCHISON, Mr. BURR, Mr. HELLER, Mr. 

RISCH, Mr. COATS, Mr. PORTMAN, Mr. 

KYL, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. 

INHOFE, Mr. COCHRAN, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. 

ISAKSON, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. ENZI, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. COBURN, Mr. 

JOHNSON, of Wisconsin, Mr. CHAMBLISS, 

Mr. JOHANNS, and Mr. LUGAR): 

S. 3445. A bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, to provide for the 

development of a plan to increase oil 

and gas exploration, development, and 

production under oil and gas leases of 

Federal land, and for other purposes; to 

the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources. 

Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I rise to 

discuss this comprehensive plan for energy security for our Nation. 

When I say ‘‘energy security,’’ I 

mean producing more energy than we 

consume. I believe, with this approach, 

within 5 to 7 years we can truly be a 

nation that is energy secure. Again, I 

mean producing more energy than we 

consume. This comprehensive plan for 

energy security is about truly producing all our energy resources in this 

country. 

Many of these bills in this package of 

Energy bills have already been passed 

by the House that we are introducing 

now in the Senate, as well as additional legislation—ideas that Senators 

have put forward that were adding to it 

as well. 

The approach is similar to the approach we have taken in North Dakota 

over the last decade. My home State of 

North Dakota has developed all its energy resources—both traditional and 

renewable—in a vigorous way over the 

last decade, and we are now an energy 

powerhouse for the Nation. We can see 

what we are doing in oil and gas, but 

we are doing a tremendous amount in 

all other forms of energy as well—both 

traditional and renewable. It is because 

we worked in a very inclusive way to 

include everybody’s ideas in building a 

comprehensive energy plan that we call 

Empower ND—Empower North Dakota. 

There was no one person who came 

up this whole comprehensive plan or 

with all the ideas, but we reached out 

to everyone—all the different energy 

sectors—and said: Let’s collaborate, 

let’s work together, let’s pass a comprehensive energy plan, and then let’s 

keep improving it. Let’s make it a 

process rather than a one-time product 

and keep adding ideas and bringing 

forth items that will help us spur and 

drive our energy development in the 

State, ideas that will create the kind of 

business climate that will truly empower private investment—private investment that will deploy the new 

technologies that not only produce 

more energy but do it with sound environmental stewardship. That is exactly 

what is happening in North Dakota, 

and that is exactly what need to do at 

the national level. 

This Domestic Energy and Jobs Act 

clearly demonstrates that we have an 

energy plan and that we are ready to 

go and that we are coordinating with 

our colleagues in the House as well. 

Right now there are 30 sponsors for this 

legislation, including the Republican 

leadership, as well as the energy leaders. 

It also is a plan which has reached 

out to what the House calls their 

HEAT team—which stands for House 

Energy Action Team. Representative 

MCCARTHY and others, certainly FRED

UPTON, who is head of their Energy and 

Commerce Committee, Representative 

HASTINGS, and others who are truly energy leaders in the House—people 

whom I have worked with on things 

such as the Keystone Pipeline, Representative TERRY and Representative 

CONNIE MACK and others. 

This is about getting people involved 

in an inclusive way and putting in 

place an energy policy that truly 

serves this Nation and empowers private investment. We see how important 

that is now. 

We have hundreds of billions of investment dollars waiting to be invested 

in producing more energy, more jobs, 

and more security for our country. 

This approach will empower private investment to develop all our energy resources. It does things such as reduce 

the regulatory burden, streamlines permitting—both onshore and offshore— 

and helps us develop vital infrastructure such as the Keystone Pipeline. It 

develops our resources on public lands, 

including our renewables, and setting 

realistic goals with a market-based approach, not picking winners or losers, 

and preserving multiple use on our 

public lands throughout this country. 

It would put in a freeze and require a 

study of rules that are driving up our 

gasoline prices. 

It also includes a bill from Senator 

MURKOWSKI. It directs the U.S. Geological Survey to establish an inventory of 

critical minerals in the United States 

and to set policies to help us develop 

those minerals. 

What is the impact? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in March of 2011, undertook a study. In that study, they 

looked and determined there are more 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 26, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5489 

than 350 energy projects that are being 

held up because of an inability to get 

permitted or a regulatory burden or 

other hurdles and roadblocks. In that 

study, they determined that if these 

energy projects—again, more than 350 

energy projects—could be green-lighted, it would $1.1 trillion in additional 

gross domestic product and 1.9 million 

jobs a year—1.9 million jobs a year just 

in the construction phase for those energy projects. 

So this legislation isn’t just about 

energy for our country. It is about energy. It is about a comprehensive approach—more than 13 different pieces 

of legislation, many of which have already passed the House. It is about a 

comprehensive approach to get development of our energy resources underway in a big way. But it is about job 

creation. It is about economic growth. 

It is about economic growth that will 

help us get the 13 million-plus people 

who are currently unemployed back to 

work. It is about economic growth that 

will help us generate revenue to reduce 

our deficit and our debt, and it truly is 

about national security. 

Look what is going on right now in 

the Middle East. Look what is going on 

in Syria, in Iran, in Egypt with the rise 

of the Muslim Brotherhood. Look at 

the instability. Yet we still depend on 

oil from the Middle East and places 

such as Venezuela. There is no need for 

that. We can produce our own energy 

and more. It is an interconnected 

world. We all know that. 

So when I talk about energy security, I mean producing more energy 

than we consume. That is what I mean 

by energy security. Of course, when 

there is an increased supply, what happens? It helps bring prices down. Think 

of the impact that has for families and 

for our economy. 

Just recently, in the last few days, a 

company called CNOOC out of China— 

which is essentially a Chinese Government-owned company—offered $15 billion to buy Nexen, a major Canadian 

oil company—$15 billion. Why did they 

do that? To buy energy resources in 

Canada, so China would own energy resources in Canada. 

As you know, I have been down on 

the floor many times, and I have 

worked very hard to get the Keystone 

Pipeline approved because if we don’t 

produce and get that oil from Canada, 

somebody else will, and China is working to do just that. 

So after the administration held up 

the Keystone XL Pipeline, what happened? Canadian Prime Minister Harper went to China. There, he met with 

Chairman Wu and the other energy 

leaders in China and they signed an 

MOU or MOA, a memorandum of understanding/memorandum of agreement. 

In it, what did they say? They said 

China and Canada are going to cooperate on developing resources, energy resources in Canada. Of course, that energy then goes to China. 

The question we have to ask is are we 

going to work with our closest friend 

and ally, Canada, to develop things 

such as the Keystone XL Pipeline so oil 

will come from Canada to the United 

States rather than going to China. 

Or are we in this country going to be 

in a position where we have to buy our 

oil back from the Chinese? I know how 

the Americans want that question answered. That is what I am talking 

about. We need to be developing these 

energy resources in this country, and 

together with our closest friend and 

ally, Canada, we can do it. 

There is another important point to 

be made here. I know there are some 

opponents of developing the Canadian 

oil sands concerned about CO2 emissions. But here are some things they 

have to think about. Already you can 

see China coming in, working with 

Canada to develop those resources. So 

those resources are going to be developed. The question is, is that oil going 

to China or is it going to come to the 

United States? 

The point is this: By building pipelines, we not only bring it to the 

United States but we empower investment in the Canadian oil sands that 

will help us produce more energy but 

do it with better environmental stewardship. Eighty percent of the new development in the Canadian oil sands is 

what is called ‘‘in situ,’’ which means 

drilling instead of the excavation. That 

means lower CO2 emissions, that means 

emissions very much in line with what 

we produce now in the United States 

with our conventional drilling. 

We have an opportunity, an incredible opportunity. We need to seize it 

with both hands. As I say, we can be 

energy secure in this country within 5 

years. I think when people look at 

what is going on in the Middle East, 

when they see our soldiers over there, 

when they see the instability that is 

being created by regimes like Syria or 

Iran, when they see what is going on in 

countries like Egypt and they understand there could be an event that 

closes the Strait of Hormuz, they understand what that would mean for oil 

prices and energy prices in this country. 

We do not want to be dependent on 

that situation, which means it is time 

to act. This is not about spending 

money; this is about generating jobs 

and generating revenue that will help 

us reduce our deficit, that will put our 

people to work, that will unleash the 

private investment, the entrepreneurship, the ingenuity of the American 

people to truly propel our Nation forward, to propel our economy forward, 

and to make us safer and more secure. 

The time has come to act. The House 

passed much of this plan with bipartisan support. We need to do the same 

in the Senate. 

This is not the end of the story. This 

is an important part, the foundation, if 

you will, of building the right energy 

story for our country. We can do it and 

I urge my colleagues to join me in this 

effort. 

By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, 

Mrs. BOXER, Mr. MERKLEY, and 

Mr. WHITEHOUSE): 

S. 3452. A bill to amend the Truth in 

Lending Act to establish a national 

usury rate for consumer credit transactions; to the Committee on Banking, 

Housing, and Urban Affairs. 

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, as our 

economy continues to recover, families 

across America are still facing financial hardships. Our priority to help 

working families must persevere, and 

we must protect them from future financial harm. 

Some have compared today’s predatory lending practices to the subprime 

lending that caused the financial crisis 

in 2008. We need to free our financial 

system from these abuses and prevent 

consumers from never-ending debt 

traps. 

Today I am introducing the Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable 

Credit Rates Act to protect consumers 

from aggressive predatory lending 

practices. The bill caps annualized interest rates on consumer credit at 36 

percent. 

Consumers spend over $30 billion 

every year on predatory payday loans, 

high-cost overdraft loans, and other 

forms of credit. Imagine if a portion of 

that $300 billion ten-year cost of credit 

could be redirected towards buying 

American goods and services. 

In an era that has called for trillions 

of taxpayer dollars to bail out banks 

and jumpstart economic demand, this 

proposal costs the taxpayers nothing. 

In fact, in the case of payday lending, 

it could potentially save billions of dollars in fees and interest paid by the 12 

million American taxpayers who use 

these products annually. 

The Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Credit Rates Act would establish a new federal annualized Fee 

and Interest Rate calculation—the 

FAIR—and institute a 36 percent cap 

for all types of consumer credit. 

In 2006, Congress enacted a Federal 36 

percent annualized usury cap for certain credit products marketed to military servicemembers and their families, which curbed payday, car title, 

and other forms of credit around military bases. My bill would provide the 

same protections for all Americans. 

Although I hope to gain widespread 

support for this bill from responsible 

lenders, I understand that some of the 

financial service firms in this country 

will be uneasy with a broad bill establishing a high interest rate cap. 

There are those that will claim it is 

not possible to create a profitable, 

small-dollar, short-term loan with APR 

capped at 36 percent and consumer protections. However, there are financial 

institutions that currently offer access 

to quick credit through products with 

consumer protections and interest less 

than 36 percent. I hope with the introduction of this bill we can open an honest conversation about consumer credit 

rates and how it impacts American 

families. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5490 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 26, 2012 

I would first start by asking what 

services these firms provide that can 

justify charging customers over 36 percent in annual interest. How do lenders 

in my home state of Illinois justify 

charging annual rates over 400 percent? 

In my opinion, there is no justification. 

Consider 66 year-old Rosa Mobley, 

who lives on Social Security and a 

small pension. 

The Chicago Tribune reports that Ms. 

Mobley took out a car title loan—a 

type of payday loan in which the borrowers put up their cars as collateral— 

for $1,000. Ms. Mobley was charged 300 

percent interest. 

She wound up paying more than 

$4,000 over 28 months and at the time of 

the report was struggling just to get 

by. 

This bill would require that all fees 

and finance changes be included in the 

new usury rate calculation and would 

require all lending to conform to the 

limit, thereby eliminating the many 

loopholes that have allowed these predatory practices to flourish. 

It would not preempt stronger state 

laws, it would allow states’ attorneys 

general to help enforce this new rate 

cap, and it would provide for strong 

civil penalties to deter lender violations. 

The Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Credit Rates Act would 

eliminate predatory lenders, as well as 

would help borrowers make smarter 

choices. 

The Truth in Lending Act was enacted over 40 years ago to help consumers compare the costs of borrowing 

when buying a home, a car, or other 

items by establishing a standard Annual Percentage Rate that all lenders 

should advertise. 

My first mentor in politics, the late 

Senator Paul Douglas from my home 

state of Illinois, said all the way back 

in 1963 that too often lenders: 

compound the camouflaging of credit by 

loading on all sorts of extraneous fees, such 

as exorbitant fees for credit life insurance, 

excessive fees for credit investigation, and 

all sorts of loan processing fees which rightfully should be included in the percentage 

rate statement so that any percentage rate 

quoted is meaningless and deceptive. 

That was before anyone had ever 

heard of ‘‘subprime lending.’’ 

Unfortunately, as the use of credit 

has exploded and as the complexity of 

the credit products offered by lenders 

has become mind-boggling, Congress 

and the Federal Reserve have taken 

several actions since the passage of 

Truth in Lending to weaken the APR 

as a tool for comparison shopping. 

Today, many fees can be excluded from 

the rate that is given to borrowers. The 

APR no longer gives consumers the 

convenient and accurate information it 

once did. 

This bill would give consumers a way 

to accurately compare credit options, 

by requiring that the new FAIR calculation be disclosed both for open-end 

credit plans such as credit cards and 

for closed-end credit such as mortgages 

and payday loans. 

On a related note, I commend my colleague, Senator JEFF MERKLEY of Oregon, who introduced the SAFE Lending Act of 2012 earlier this week. I am 

proud to be an original cosponsor of 

the bill. The bill would require better 

compliance among lenders within existing laws and provide new enforcement measures for offshore lenders or 

those who claim the right to tribal sovereign immunity. These provisions, 

along with further consumer protections offered within his bill, offer 

much-needed lending reforms. 

Various Federal and State loopholes 

allow unscrupulous lenders to charge 

struggling consumers 400 percent annual interest for payday loans on average, 300 percent annual interest for car 

title loans, up to 3500 percent annual 

interest for bank overdraft loans, and 

triple-digit rates for online installment 

loans. 

As Congress continues to address economic challenges facing our nation, I 

urge my colleagues to also consider 

simple solutions to help working families make ends meet. We can help give 

more money to American consumers 

today without borrowing money that 

must be repaid tomorrow. Let’s start 

by eliminating some of the worst 

abuses in lending by establishing a reasonable fee and interest rate cap. 

I urge my colleagues to support the 

Protecting Consumers from Unreasonable Credit Rates Act. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 3452 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting 

Consumers from Unreasonable Credit Rates 

Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

Congress finds that— 

(1) attempts have been made to prohibit 

usurious interest rates in America since colonial times; 

(2) at the Federal level, in 2006, Congress 

enacted a Federal 36 percent annualized 

usury cap for service members and their families for covered credit products, as defined 

by the Department of Defense, which curbed 

payday, car title, and tax refund lending 

around military bases; 

(3) notwithstanding such attempts to curb 

predatory lending, high-cost lending persists 

in all 50 States due to loopholes in State 

laws, safe harbor laws for specific forms of 

credit, and the exportation of unregulated 

interest rates permitted by preemption; 

(4) due to the lack of a comprehensive Federal usury cap, consumers annually pay approximately $23,700,000,000 for high-cost overdraft loans, as much as $8,100,000,000 for 

storefront and online payday loans, and additional amounts in unreported revenues from 

bank direct deposit advance loans and highcost online installment loans; 

(5) cash-strapped consumers pay on average 400 percent annual interest for payday 

loans, 300 percent annual interest for car 

title loans, up to 3,500 percent for bank overdraft loans, and triple-digit rates for online 

installment loans; 

(6) a national maximum interest rate that 

includes all forms of fees and closes all loopholes is necessary to eliminate such predatory lending; and 

(7) alternatives to predatory lending that 

encourage small dollar loans with minimal 

or no fees, installment payment schedules, 

and affordable repayment periods should be 

encouraged. 

SEC. 3. NATIONAL MAXIMUM INTEREST RATE. 

The Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1601 et 

seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘SEC. 141. MAXIMUM RATES OF INTEREST. 

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any 

other provision of law, no creditor may make 

an extension of credit to a consumer with respect to which the fee and interest rate, as 

defined in subsection (b), exceeds 36 percent. 

‘‘(b) FEE AND INTEREST RATE DEFINED.— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this section, the fee and interest rate includes all 

charges payable, directly or indirectly, incident to, ancillary to, or as a condition of the 

extension of credit, including— 

‘‘(A) any payment compensating a creditor 

or prospective creditor for— 

‘‘(i) an extension of credit or making available a line of credit, such as fees connected 

with credit extension or availability such as 

numerical periodic rates, annual fees, cash 

advance fees, and membership fees; or 

‘‘(ii) any fees for default or breach by a 

borrower of a condition upon which credit 

was extended, such as late fees, creditor-imposed not sufficient funds fees charged when 

a borrower tenders payment on a debt with a 

check drawn on insufficient funds, overdraft 

fees, and over limit fees; 

‘‘(B) all fees which constitute a finance 

charge, as defined by rules of the Bureau in 

accordance with this title; 

‘‘(C) credit insurance premiums, whether 

optional or required; and 

‘‘(D) all charges and costs for ancillary 

products sold in connection with or incidental to the credit transaction. 

‘‘(2) TOLERANCES.— 

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—With respect to a credit 

obligation that is payable in at least 3 fully 

amortizing installments over at least 90 

days, the term ‘fee and interest rate’ does 

not include— 

‘‘(i) application or participation fees that 

in total do not exceed the greater of $30 or, 

if there is a limit to the credit line, 5 percent 

of the credit limit, up to $120, if— 

‘‘(I) such fees are excludable from the finance charge pursuant to section 106 and 

regulations issued thereunder; 

‘‘(II) such fees cover all credit extended or 

renewed by the creditor for 12 months; and 

‘‘(III) the minimum amount of credit extended or available on a credit line is equal 

to $300 or more; 

‘‘(ii) a late fee charged as authorized by 

State law and by the agreement that does 

not exceed either $20 per late payment or $20 

per month; or 

‘‘(iii) a creditor-imposed not sufficient 

funds fee charged when a borrower tenders 

payment on a debt with a check drawn on insufficient funds that does not exceed $15. 

‘‘(B) ADJUSTMENTS FOR INFLATION.—The 

Bureau may adjust the amounts of the tolerances established under this paragraph for 

inflation over time, consistent with the primary goals of protecting consumers and ensuring that the 36 percent fee and interest 

rate limitation is not circumvented. 

‘‘(c) CALCULATIONS.— 

‘‘(1) OPEN END CREDIT PLANS.—For an open 

end credit plan— 

‘‘(A) the fee and interest rate shall be calculated each month, based upon the sum of 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 26, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5491 

all fees and finance charges described in subsection (b) charged by the creditor during 

the preceding 1-year period, divided by the 

average daily balance; and 

‘‘(B) if the credit account has been open 

less than 1 year, the fee and interest rate 

shall be calculated based upon the total of 

all fees and finance charges described in subsection (b)(1) charged by the creditor since 

the plan was opened, divided by the average 

daily balance, and multiplied by the 

quotient of 12 divided by the number of full 

months that the credit plan has been in existence. 

‘‘(2) OTHER CREDIT PLANS.—For purposes of 

this section, in calculating the fee and interest rate, the Bureau shall require the method 

of calculation of annual percentage rate 

specified in section 107(a)(1), except that the 

amount referred to in that section 107(a)(1) 

as the ‘finance charge’ shall include all fees, 

charges, and payments described in subsection (b)(1) of this section. 

‘‘(3) ADJUSTMENTS AUTHORIZED.—The Bureau may make adjustments to the calculations in paragraphs (1) and (2), but the primary goals of such adjustment shall be to 

protect consumers and to ensure that the 36 

percent fee and interest rate limitation is 

not circumvented. 

‘‘(d) DEFINITION OF CREDITOR.—As used in 

this section, the term ‘creditor’ has the same 

meaning as in section 702(e) of the Equal 

Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. 1691a(e)). 

‘‘(e) NO EXEMPTIONS PERMITTED.—The exemption authority of the Bureau under section 105 shall not apply to the rates established under this section or the disclosure requirements under section 127(b)(6). 

‘‘(f) DISCLOSURE OF FEE AND INTEREST RATE

FOR CREDIT OTHER THAN OPEN END CREDIT

PLANS.—In addition to the disclosure requirements under section 127(b)(6), the Bureau may prescribe regulations requiring disclosure of the fee and interest rate established under this section. 

‘‘(g) RELATION TO STATE LAW.—Nothing in 

this section may be construed to preempt 

any provision of State law that provides 

greater protection to consumers than is provided in this section. 

‘‘(h) CIVIL LIABILITY AND ENFORCEMENT.—In 

addition to remedies available to the consumer under section 130(a), any payment 

compensating a creditor or prospective creditor, to the extent that such payment is a 

transaction made in violation of this section, 

shall be null and void, and not enforceable by 

any party in any court or alternative dispute 

resolution forum, and the creditor or any 

subsequent holder of the obligation shall 

promptly return to the consumer any principal, interest, charges, and fees, and any security interest associated with such transaction. Notwithstanding any statute of limitations or repose, a violation of this section 

may be raised as a matter of defense by 

recoupment or setoff to an action to collect 

such debt or repossess related security at 

any time. 

‘‘(i) VIOLATIONS.—Any person that violates 

this section, or seeks to enforce an agreement made in violation of this section, shall 

be subject to, for each such violation, 1 year 

in prison and a fine in an amount equal to 

the greater of— 

‘‘(1) 3 times the amount of the total accrued debt associated with the subject transaction; or 

‘‘(2) $50,000. 

‘‘(j) STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL.—An action to enforce this section may be brought 

by the appropriate State attorney general in 

any United States district court or any other 

court of competent jurisdiction within 3 

years from the date of the violation, and 

such attorney general may obtain injunctive 

relief.’’. 

SEC. 4. DISCLOSURE OF FEE AND INTEREST RATE 

FOR OPEN END CREDIT PLANS. 

Section 127(b)(6) of the Truth in Lending 

Act (15 U.S.C. 1637(b)(6)) is amended by striking ‘‘the total finance charge expressed’’ and 

all that follows through the end of the paragraph and inserting ‘‘the fee and interest 

rate, displayed as ‘FAIR’, established under 

section 141.’’. 

By Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Ms. 

MIKULSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. 

SANDERS, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. 

FRANKEN, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. 

LEAHY, Mr. AKAKA, Mrs. BOXER, 

Mr. WYDEN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. 

SCHUMER, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. 

BROWN of Ohio, and Mrs. GILLIBRAND); 

S. 3453. A bill to provide for an increase in the Federal minimum wage; 

to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have 

come to the floor many times over the 

past couple of years to talk about the 

decline of the American Dream. The 

American Dream is supposed to be 

about building a better life. If you 

work hard and play by the rules, you 

should be able to support your family, 

join the middle class, and provide a 

brighter future for your children. Unfortunately, this dream is nothing 

more than an illusion for millions of 

hardworking people who are trying to 

get by working in low-wage jobs. They 

are working hard and playing by the 

rules, but they face declining wages, 

declining opportunities, and declining 

economic security. Even working fulltime, all year round, they can’t make 

ends meet, much less join the middle 

class. That is not what America is supposed to be about. 

That is why today I am introducing 

legislation that has one of the simplest 

and most effective policy solutions for 

shoring up the wages and financial security of our nation’s low-wage workers. My bill, the Fair Minimum Wage 

Act of 2012, will raise the minimum 

wage. I would like to recognize my colleague in the House of Representatives, 

Ranking Member on the Education and 

Workforce Committee, GEORGE MILLER, 

who is joining me in this effort. 

My bill will do three things: First, it 

will raise the minimum wage to $9.80 

per hour in three steps over the course 

of 2 years. Second, it will link the minimum wage in the future to increases 

in the cost of living, through the Consumer Price Index, so that low-wage 

workers no longer fall further and further behind. Third, for the first time in 

more than 20 years, it will raise the 

minimum wage lags for tipped workers, 

from a paltry $2.13 per hour to a level 

that is 70 percent of the full minimum 

wage, or around $6.85 per hour. This 

will be a gradual change, accomplished 

over 5 years, that will give businesses 

time to adjust while providing more 

fairness for hardworking people who 

work in tipped industries. 

This bill and these raises are long 

overdue. We all know that working 

Americans’ paychecks have been stagnant for decades. But the situation is 

even worse for minimum wage workers. 

Today the minimum wage lags far behind its historic levels. It hasn’t kept 

up with any other indicator in our 

economy, not with costs, or average 

wages, or our still rapid growth in productivity. 

At its peak value in 1968, the minimum wage was worth more than $10.50 

in today’s dollars. That means that the 

minimum wage has lost 31 percent of 

its buying power since the late 1960s. 

How can we possibly allow this to be? 

Costs have been rising in real terms, on 

everything from food and rent to bigticket items like health care and a college education. But Congress has let 

the minimum wage languish. The lowest wage workers in our society simply 

cannot afford this. 

Even if we measured the minimum 

wage against other indicators in our 

economy, it has not kept up. The minimum wage used to be more than half 

of average wages; now it is barely a 

third. In the 1960s and 1970s, the minimum wage kept a family of three 

above the poverty line, 20 percent 

above it in 1968. But today, the minimum wage lags behind the poverty 

line by 16 percent. And let’s not forget 

that the poverty line is a woefully inadequate measure of what families 

really need by any realistic measure. 

Who in this chamber could support two 

children on $18,000 per year, which is 

the official poverty line? Yet the minimum wage only pays $15,000 a year to 

someone working full-time who never 

takes a single day off all year. My bill 

will raise the minimum wage to about 

$20,000 per year, and it will maintain 

the wage at a level that keeps up with 

rising costs. 

While workers are working longer 

and harder than ever, their paychecks 

don’t reflect that contribution. If the 

minimum wage had kept up with productivity growth since 1968, it would be 

nearly $22 an hour this year; even if it 

had kept up with just one-quarter of 

productivity growth, it would be $12.25 

per hour. So while companies have 

reaped the benefits of all this productivity growth, the people who actually 

do the work have seen none of its 

value. It has all gone to executive management and shareholders. It has gone 

to profits, not the people who do the 

work. 

There will be tens of millions of people in this country who will benefit 

from this legislation. Twenty-eight 

million workers will get a raise, either 

directly by the legislation, or indirectly through the ‘‘trickle up’’ effects 

of a higher wage floor—that is more 

than a fifth of our workforce that will 

be impacted. Among them, more than 

half are women, and more than four in 

ten are people of color—both of these 

groups are overrepresented in low-wage 

work. They are the ones who care for 

our children and elders, who clean our 

offices and factories, who serve us food, 

who keep our economic engine running. 

These are some of the hardest jobs and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
S5492 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE July 26, 2012 

hardest workers, and yet their pay is 

simply paltry. We will never have fair 

wages for women or greater racial 

equality if the minimum wage is not a 

just and fair minimum wage. 

The families of these 28 million 

workers will also benefit. More than 21 

million children have parents who will 

get a raise. This will be so meaningful 

to these families. After all, children 

represent more than a third of poor 

Americans. Nearly half of children, 44 

percent, are poor or low-income, and 

even among families with parents 

working full-time year-round, nearly 

three in ten children are poor or lowincome. This is largely because wages 

are much too low to support a family. 

Yet wages aren’t low because our 

economy can’t afford them. No. Our 

economic growth is going to profits, 

not to workers. Inequality is at the 

highest level we’ve seen since the eve 

of the Great Depression. CEOs are raking in millions—even if their companies are not performing well—while 

low-wage workers are barely able to 

put food on the table, and even then it 

is often with the help of food stamps. 

Last year, the average CEO earned 

nearly $13 million. That was after a 23 

percent raise in 2010 and a 14 percent 

raise in 2011. Minimum wage workers 

had no raises in those years. But CEOs 

are getting $13 million a year. That is 

more than $6,200 an hour. A CEO earns 

more before lunch on his first day of 

work than a minimum wage worker 

earns in an entire year. 

Some people will criticize this measure, saying it will force businesses to 

lay off workers, and that workers will 

actually be hurt by getting a raise. 

History proves that these assertions 

are simply wrong. We know from decades of rigorous research that minimum wage raises along the lines of 

what I am proposing do not have negative jobs effects—and if there are any 

effects on jobs, they are small, but 

positive effects. This goes for teenagers, too; study after study confirms 

minimum wage raises do not cause 

teenage unemployment. 

Indeed, businesses are helped when 

their workers get a raise because raising the minimum wage acts like a 

stimulus. Businesses will reap more in 

sales when their customers have more 

money in their pockets, and they will 

save money through increased productivity and morale and reduced turnover. My bill will put an extra $40 billion in the hands of low-wage workers 

and their families. We know that these 

workers don’t have much if any room 

for savings—they will go out and spend 

it, and this will benefit the local businesses in their communities. Indeed, 

this extra spending power will boost 

GDP by more than $25 billion and add 

100,000 jobs, as increased economic activity ripples through the economy. 

Businesses will also save from reduced turnover cost, since turnover 

rates fall when workers earn more 

money. It can cost thousands of dollars 

to recruit, hire, and train new employees, even for low-skill jobs. Of course 

all businesses would have the same 

minimum wage, meaning no business 

would be any worse off than a competitor. A raise in the minimum wage 

would also reduce competitive disadvantage faced by businesses that already pay a higher wage. These businesses should be rewarded, not punished for paying fair wages. 

We must also look at what is happening in our economy. We are becoming a low-wage economy. Low-wage 

jobs are growing faster than middle- or 

high-wage jobs. Over the next decade, 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 7 of the 10 occupations with 

the largest job growth will be low-wage 

jobs. With so much of our economy 

moving to the low end of the wage 

scale, we must ensure that those wages 

are adequate. 

It is long past time to establish a fair 

minimum wage in our country. It is 

good for families, good for business and 

good for our economy. Most importantly, it is the right thing to do. People who work hard for a living should 

not have to live in poverty. I am proud 

to introduce this bill today, to raise 

the minimum wage, and to help tens of 

millions of workers and their families. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed 

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD. as follows: 

S. 3453 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2012’’. 

SEC. 2. MINIMUM WAGE INCREASES. 

(a) MINIMUM WAGE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair 

Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 

206(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(1) except as otherwise provided in this 

section, not less than— 

‘‘(A) $8.10 an hour, beginning on the first 

day of the third month that begins after the 

date of enactment of the Fair Minimum 

Wage Act of 2012 Act; 

‘‘(B) $8.95 an hour, beginning 1 year after 

that first day; 

‘‘(C) $9.80 an hour, beginning 2 years after 

that first day; and 

‘‘(D) beginning on the date that is 3 years 

after that first day, and annually thereafter, 

the amount determined by the Secretary 

pursuant to subsection (h);’’. 

(2) DETERMINATION BASED ON INCREASE IN

THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX.—Section 6 of the 

Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 

206) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘(h)(1) Each year, by not later than the 

date that is 90 days before a new minimum 

wage determined under subsection (a)(1)(D) 

is to take effect, the Secretary shall determine the minimum wage to be in effect pursuant to this subsection for the subsequent 1- 

year period. The wage determined pursuant 

to this subsection for a year shall be— 

‘‘(A) not less than the amount in effect 

under subsection (a)(1) on the date of such 

determination; 

‘‘(B) increased from such amount by the 

annual percentage increase in the Consumer 

Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and 

Clerical Workers (United States city average, all items, not seasonally adjusted), or 

its successor publication, as determined by 

the Bureau of Labor Statistics; and 

‘‘(C) rounded to the nearest multiple of 

$0.05. 

‘‘(2) In calculating the annual percentage 

increase in the Consumer Price Index for 

purposes of paragraph (1)(B), the Secretary 

shall compare such Consumer Price Index for 

the most recent month, quarter, or year 

available (as selected by the Secretary prior 

to the first year for which a minimum wage 

is in effect pursuant to this subsection) with 

the Consumer Price Index for the same 

month in the preceding year, the same quarter in the preceding year, or the preceding 

year, respectively.’’. 

(b) BASE MINIMUM WAGE FOR TIPPED EMPLOYEES.—Section 3(m)(1) of the Fair Labor 

Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(m)(1)) is 

amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(1) the cash wage paid such employee, 

which for purposes of such determination 

shall be not less than— 

‘‘(A) for the 1-year period beginning on the 

first day of the third month that begins after 

the date of enactment of the Fair Minimum 

Wage Act of 2012, $3.00 an hour; 

‘‘(B) for each succeeding 1-year period until 

the hourly wage under this paragraph equals 

70 percent of the wage in effect under section 

6(a)(1) for such period, an hourly wage equal 

to the amount determined under this paragraph for the preceding year, increased by 

the lesser of— 

‘‘(i) $0.85; or 

‘‘(ii) the amount necessary for the wage in 

effect under this paragraph to equal 70 percent of the wage in effect under section 

6(a)(1) for such period, rounded to the nearest multiple of $0.05; and 

‘‘(C) for each succeeding 1-year period after 

the year in which the hourly wage under this 

paragraph first equals 70 percent of the wage 

in effect under section 6(a)(1) for the same 

period, the amount necessary to ensure that 

the wage in effect under this paragraph remains equal to 70 percent of the wage in effect under section 6(a)(1), rounded to the 

nearest multiple of $0.05; and’’. 

(c) PUBLICATION OF NOTICE.—Section 6 of 

the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (as 

amended by subsection (a)) (29 U.S.C. 206) is 

further amended by adding at the end the 

following: 

‘‘(i) Not later than 60 days prior to the effective date of any increase in the minimum 

wage determined under subsection (h) or required for tipped employees in accordance 

with subparagraph (B) or (C) of section 

3(m)(1), as amended by the Fair Minimum 

Wage Act of 2012, the Secretary shall publish 

in the Federal Register and on the website of 

the Department of Labor a notice announcing the adjusted required wage.’’. 

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by subsections (a) and (b) shall take effect on the first day of the third month that 

begins after the date of enactment of this 

Act. 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE
July 26, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S5493 

SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS 

SENATE RESOLUTION 529—RECOGNIZING THAT THE OCCURRENCE 

OF PROSTATE CANCER IN AFRICAN-AMERICAN MEN HAS 

REACHED EPIDEMIC PROPORTIONS AND URGING FEDERAL 

AGENCIES TO ADDRESS THAT 

HEALTH CRISIS BY SUPPORTING 

EDUCATION, AWARENESS OUTREACH, AND RESEARCH SPECIFICALLY FOCUSED ON HOW PROSTATE CANCER AFFECTS AFRICAN-AMERICAN MEN 

Mr. KERRY (for himself, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. 

AKAKA, and Mr. CARDIN) submitted the 

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: 

S. RES. 529 

Whereas the incidence of prostate cancer 

in African-American men is more than one 

and a half times higher than in any other racial or ethnic group in the United States; 

Whereas African-American men have the 

highest mortality rate of any ethnic and racial group in the United States, dying at a 

rate that is approximately two and a half 

times higher than other ethnic and racial 

groups; 

Whereas that rate of mortality represents 

the largest disparity of mortality rates in 

any of the major cancers; 

Whereas prostate cancer can be cured with 

early detection and the proper treatment, regardless of the ethnic or racial group of the 

cancer patient; 

Whereas African Americans are more likely to be diagnosed at an earlier age and at a 

later stage of cancer progression than all 

other ethnic and racial groups, leading to 

lower cure rates and lower chances of survival; 

Whereas, for patients diagnosed early, 

studies show a 5-year survival rate of nearly 

100 percent, but the survival rate drops significantly to 28 percent for patients diagnosed in late stages; and 

Whereas recent genomics research has increased the ability to identify men at high 

risk for aggressive prostate cancer: Now, 

therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the Senate— 

(1) recognizes that prostate cancer has created a health crisis for African-American 

men; 

(2) recognizes the importance of health 

coverage and access to care, as well as promoting informed decisionmaking between 

men and their doctors, taking into consideration the known risks and potential benefits 

of screening and treatment options for prostate cancer; 

(3) urges Federal agencies to support— 

(A) research to address and attempt to end 

the health crisis created by prostate cancer; 

(B) efforts relating to education, awareness, and early detection at the grassroots 

level to end that health crisis; and 

(C) the Office of Minority Health of the Department of Health and Human Services in 

focusing on improving health and healthcare 

outcomes for African Americans at an elevated risk of prostate cancer; and 

(4) urges investment by Federal agencies in 

research focusing on the improvement of 

early detection and treatment of prostate 

cancer, such as the use of— 

(A) biomarkers to accurately distinguish 

indolent forms of prostate cancer from lethal 

forms; and 

(B) advanced imaging tools to ensure the 

best level of individualized patient care. 

SENATE RESOLUTION 530—DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF AUGUST 

2012 AS ‘‘NATIONAL REGISTERED 

APPRENTICESHIP MONTH’’ 

Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin, Mr. 

KOHL, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mr. PRYOR, 

and Ms. CANTWELL) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to: 

S. RES. 530 

Whereas 2012 marks the 75th anniversary of 

the enactment of the Act of August 16, 1937 

(29 U.S.C. 50 et seq.) (commonly known as 

the ‘‘National Apprenticeship Act’’), which 

established the national registered apprenticeship system; 

Whereas the State of Wisconsin created the 

first State registered apprenticeship system 

in 1911; 

Whereas the Act of August 16, 1937 (29 

U.S.C. 50 et seq.) (commonly known as the 

‘‘National Apprenticeship Act’’) established 

a comprehensive system of partnerships 

among employers, labor organizations, educational institutions, and Federal and State 

governments, which has shaped skill training for succeeding generations of United 

States workers; 

Whereas for 75 years, the national registered apprenticeship system has provided 

state of the art training using an model 

known as ‘‘earn while you learn’’ that offers 

a pathway to the middle class and a sustainable career for millions of workers in the 

United States; 

Whereas the national registered apprenticeship system has grown to include approximately 24,000 programs across the 

United States, providing education and 

training for apprentices in emerging and 

high-growth sectors, such as information 

technology and health care, as well as in traditional industries; 

Whereas the national registered apprenticeship system leverages approximately 

$1,000,000,000 in private investment, reflecting the strong commitment of the sponsors 

of the system, which include industry associations, individual employers, and labormanagement partnerships; 

Whereas the national registered apprenticeship system is an important post-secondary pathway for United States workers, 

offering a combination of academic and technical instruction with paid, on-the-job training, resulting in a nationally and industryrecognized occupational credential that ensures higher earnings for apprentices and a 

highly skilled workforce for United States 

businesses; 

Whereas the national registered apprenticeship system has continually modernized 

and developed innovative training approaches to meet the workforce needs of industry and address the evolving challenges of 

staying competitive in the global economy; 

Whereas the national registered apprenticeship system of the 21st century, as envisioned by the Advisory Committee on Apprenticeship of the Secretary of Labor and 

administered as a partnership between the 

Federal Government and State apprenticeship programs, is positioned to produce the 

highly skilled workers the United States 

economy needs now and in the future; and 

Whereas the celebration of National Registered Apprenticeship Month— 

(1) honors the industries that use the registered apprenticeship model; 

(2) encourages other industries that could 

benefit from the registered apprenticeship 

model to train United States workers using 

the model; and 

(3) recognizes the role the national registered apprenticeship system has played in 

preparing United States workers for jobs 

with family-sustaining wages: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the Senate— 

(1) designates August 2012, as ‘‘National 

Registered Apprenticeship Month’’; 

(2) celebrates the 101st anniversary of the 

enactment of the first State registered apprenticeship law; and 

(3) celebrates the 75th anniversary of the 

enactment of the Act of August 16, 1937 (29 

U.S.C. 50 et seq.) (commonly known as the 

‘‘National Apprenticeship Act’’). 

f 

SENATE RESOLUTION 531—COMMEMORATING THE SUCCESS OF 

TEAM USA IN THE PAST 25 

OLYMPIC GAMES AND SUPPORTING TEAM USA IN THE 2012 

OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC 

GAMES 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. 

HATCH, Mr. BENNET, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. 

DURBIN, and Mr. MERKLEY) submitted 

the following resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to: 

S. RES. 531 

Whereas, for over 100 years, the Olympic 

Movement has built a more peaceful and better world by educating young people through 

amateur athletics, bringing together athletes from many countries in friendly competition, and forging new relationships 

bound by friendship, solidarity, and fair 

play; 

Whereas the 2012 Olympic Games will take 

place in London, England from July 27, 2012 

to August 12, 2012, and the 2012 Paralympic 

Games will take place from August 29, 2012 

to September 9, 2012; 

Whereas, at the 2012 Olympic Games, over 

200 nations will compete in over 300 events, 

and Team USA will compete in 246 events; 

Whereas, at the 2012 Olympic Games, over 

200 nations will compete in 39 disciplines, 

and Team USA will compete in 38 of those 

disciplines; 

Whereas 529 Olympians and over 245 

Paralympians will compete on behalf of 

Team USA in London, England; 

Whereas Team USA has won 934 gold medals, 730 silver medals, and 643 bronze medals, 

totaling 2,307 medals over the past 25 Olympic Games; 

Whereas the people of the United States 

stand united in respect and admiration for 

the members of the United States Olympic 

and Paralympic teams, and the athletic accomplishments, sportsmanship, and dedication to excellence of the teams; 

Whereas the many accomplishments of the 

United States Olympic and Paralympic 

teams would not have been possible without 

the hard work and dedication of many others, including the United States Olympic 

Committee and the many administrators, 

coaches, and family members who provided 

critical support to the athletes; 

Whereas the Nation takes great pride in 

the qualities of commitment to excellence, 

grace under pressure, and good will toward 

other competitors exhibited by the athletes 

of Team USA; and 

Whereas the Olympic Movement celebrates 

competition, fair play, and the pursuit of 

dreams: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the Senate— 

(1) applauds all of the athletes and coaches 

of Team USA and their families who support 

them; 

(2) supports the athletes of Team USA in 

their endeavors at the 2012 Olympic and 

Paralympic Games held in London, England; 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with SENATE